the worst, imo, were edward ii, henry vi, richard i (he could have been a great king but he didn't give a damn about england), john, stephen kept a bloody war going for many many years after he stole the crown from maude. henry viii wasn't a bad king--he was a bad person, plain and simple. also on the worst monarch list would have to be mary i. i find it so ironic that henry was sooo desperate to have a boy and he ended up giving england her greatest queen who was a better monarch than he was.

Stephen, Richard I, Richard II, Henry VI, Mary I, James II, Edward VIII would be me worst list for a number of reasons - namely weakness, sell outs, not putting their country first being the main ones.

Henry VIII I see as one of the best monarchs in an absolute system simply for promoting English rights over foreign ones - he really supported the idea of England being controlled by Englishmen rather than have a foreigner interfere.

James II was very unfairly treated. Sellout? Not putting his country first? He didn't invite a foreign force to invade his country to put a war-mongering Dutchman on the throne. Read what some GOOD historians are finding out about the man, not the same recycled nonsense that has been spread about the man to justify removing him from his throne. He actually was very fair and VERY progressive. How does that make anyone a bad person?

Henry VIII was a cruel, and I mean CRUEL monarch. Petty, vindictive, and murderous.

Also, England controlled by Englishmen, what, until it was turned over to the Dutch and Germans?

I don't know enough about all of them, especially the early ones, to judge them all fairly and as others have said I've heard Richard III was a victim of bad press more than anything...

You are actually SO right!! Lots of these people didn't get the benefit of good press.

Henry VIII literally had human beings hacked to death on VERY specious charges, and yet he's "Good King Hal"? Yet monarchs who were SINCERE in benefitting their country and people have been maligned by very bigotted historians for hundreds of years.

Some of the things that British Monarchs did hundreds of years ago today would be considered unacceptable. Today these things would be considered very cruel, inhumane, and vicious. Of course, they felt what they were doing was justifiable. Some of course were more vicious than others. Most of them used the death penalty to keep people in line or used it against people they considered to be a threat to them. Just a wrong look or something one said could get you the death penalty. They did what they wanted and were above the law. Others would be punished for things that they did.

They believed in the divine right of kings and felt that God Blessed them because of who they were. I would imagine these monarchs were in for quite a suprise when they died and instead of going to heaven, they went somwhere else or had to answer for what they did. No human being is immuned from being judged by God.

James II was very unfairly treated. Sellout? Not putting his country first? He didn't invite a foreign force to invade his country to put a war-mongering Dutchman on the throne. Read what some GOOD historians are finding out about the man, not the same recycled nonsense that has been spread about the man to justify removing him from his throne. He actually was very fair and VERY progressive. How does that make anyone a bad person?

Henry VIII was a cruel, and I mean CRUEL monarch. Petty, vindictive, and murderous.

Also, England controlled by Englishmen, what, until it was turned over to the Dutch and Germans?

Please name the 'GOOD' historians and what makes them 'GOOD'.

As an historian myself, who has studied the period in depth as part of my masters degree and read a number of pro and anti-James historians I stand by my opinion that he was not a good monarch.

James II was forced out and his daughter and son in law William and Mary took over.

Agreed Lenora. Some of them were "so-called defender of the faith." but the way they lived and conducted themselves was anything but Christian or Christian like. Some people no doubt were executed due to the King or Queen defending the faith or using that as a justification for the death penalty.

The point with James II was 'why was he forced out'? What sort of King was he that made the government of the day take that action? Was there more to it than simply having a son who would be raised Roman Catholic?

Christianity, as well as expectations of monarchs, has changed a great deal over time. Indeed, up until the time of Henry VIII, England's form of Christianity was Catholicism. Kings sought the blessing of the Pope, often, before going to war (which is always brutal and heinous). William the Conqueror, for example, had the Pope's blessing to war against the king elected by council.

Mary I obviously thought she was acting in accordance with Christian principles, at that time (everyone surely knows that Christians organized crusades, inquisitions, etc.)

The modern construction of Christianity as a religion of peace (at least at the level of the average Sunday sermon) is fairly new. "Onward Christian Soldiers!" was a much-loved hymn in my childhood, and for my parents and grandparents.

What makes a bad monarch? I think a failure to understand what the possibilities of the Crown are, in one's own time, and instead asserting one's own personal desires as the Crown's desires, go against all views of monarchy. If God was/is thought to favor monarchy, then clearly the Monarch should be considering God's law and is obligated to fulfill what God wants (not the other way around).

But, many people pray to God for their own personal successes (we see it in sporting events all the time). I imagine that many a crowned head saw signs that God was on their side (and Lord God is sometimes quite vengeful and meanspirited; especially in the Old Testament).

I did not mean to imply that James II fled willingly -- he was forced out and I think it was good that he was made to leave the country. IMO he was not a good monarch.

He was a decent and well-meaning man, much better than the self-serving bigots who forced him out.
How is being an open-minded man who fought for religious toleration bad? He has been been unfairly maligned for years by really bad, ignorant, so-called "historians".
HE didn't invite a foreign force to INVADE his country now, did he?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Please name the 'GOOD' historians and what makes them 'GOOD'.
As an historian myself, who has studied the period in depth as part of my masters degree and read a number of pro and anti-James historians I stand by my opinion that he was not a good monarch.

GOOD historians are those who do through research.
I notice that all the pro-William of Orange historians are very touchy about the real truth of James II's intentions coming out. Some of their works are beyond laughable and VERY poorly researched.
James wasn't a self-serving bigot like William. The man was actually beyond his time.
There's this historian who got his doctorate from Harvard, he defends James from all the second-hand nonsense that's been written about this maligned king for years.

He was a decent and well-meaning man, much better than the self-serving bigots who forced him out.

How is being an open-minded man who fought for religious toleration bad? He has been been unfairly maligned for years by really bad, ignorant, so-called "historians".

HE didn't invite a foreign force to INVADE his country now, did he?

I think we can agree to disagree, can't we? Your opinions are yours just as much as my opinions are mine. James, like all men and women, had good qualities and bad qualities. In my opinion, he was an inept politician who failed to read and understand the mood of his people. And while you maintain that he espoused religious freedoms, it also appeared to many of his contemporaries, as well as later historians, that James's demand that the Bishops read from the pulpits his declaration of indulgence gives a new definition to a "bully pulpit." Indeed, from what I have read, those who resisted were thrown into prison. I don't think that was very tolerant. It was also his enlargement of a standing army and the positioning of many Catholics in leadership positions which caused the public and government to fear that he may have an ulterior motive. After all, wasn't he the Supreme Governor of the Church and doesn't a monarch vow to uphold and maintain and defend it when being crowned?

I notice that all the pro-William of Orange historians are very touchy about the real truth of James II's intentions coming out. Some of their works are beyond laughable and VERY poorly researched.

James wasn't a self-serving bigot like William. The man was actually beyond his time.

There's this historian who got his doctorate from Harvard, he defends James from all the second-hand nonsense that's been written about this maligned king for years.

I am still awaiting the names of these historians. Saying 'good' historians and 'bad' historians without naming the ones you are putting in these categories is useless information.

I have an extensive history library of the Stuart period - having done my masters in that period so I would like to know which historians you are putting in which category.

NB I am an historian myself as well as a teacher of history so I do know how to judge them and doing thorough research actually isn't enough. You also have to assess the biases of and influences on the historian - i.e. put them in their own context - and even then two people will still assess them differently - given their own bias and perspective.

I would put the worst monarchs and King John, Henry VIII* , Mary I, Charles II, James II, George IV*, William IV*
I put Henry VIII with a star because he was a monster but a strong leader. I put George and William because they weren't bad guys, but were poor kings and as the result of that the power of the Sovereign was diminished considerably more leaving close to the same modern limits on the monarchy. I've seen people put Charles I on here, which is a bit of a touchy subject. I have to say I would rather have Charles I as King than Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector. There were also good and bad things about all the monarchs, sometimes the bad outweighed the good or vice versa. I've seen Mary, Queen of Scots mentioned -- personally I LOVE Mary, Queen of Scots and do not support the authenticity of the Casket Letters and therefore do not believe she had Lord Darnley murdered -- now Lord Bothwell is another story. She was a very strong woman who did sometimes make questionable decisions but I think she had a raw deal and I respect her dignity. Like Victoria (who I also LOVE) she would NOT be pushed around even if she could have POSSIBLY been able to regain her throne if she signed the Treaty of Edinburgh (speaking of course of the pressure on Elizabeth I by the King of France)

__________________
It may be that our future will lay upon us more than one stern test. Our past will have taught us how to meet it unshaken - His Majesty The King George V

I admit I don't know a lot about Edward I, but though he was cruel he did seem to do some good for England. I don't consider him one of the worst. I also don't know if I would consider his son one of the worst either; he just seemed to be a victim of circumstances
My list:
Henry VIII
Richard III
Mary I
Charles I (low on the list)
I would put William IV on the list, but though he doesn't seem to have done anything, I don't consider him the worst. At least the country didn't blow up.

Mary I - I do have some sympathy for her, at least as a young woman and in regards to her obvious mental issues. But a bad childhood and tyrant of a father can never excuse her burning Catholics like it was going out of fashion. I do sometimes wonder if she would have been quite so awful had she not endured the things she had. Of course in her eyes, she was probably doing the "heretics" a favour by burning their sins away. Though as with Thomas Cranmer, its obvious her intent was very much revenge and propaganda.

John - Although the result of his disastrous reign was Magna Carta, the ends most certainly did not justify the means. Of course he ended up breaking the rules of Magna Carta (which provoked civil war) and taxed people enormously, lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine and parts of Poitou. which if I am thinking correctly the attempts to take these places back were the reason for the taxes.

Stephen - usurped Henry I and cheated Matilda out of her rightful throne, He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, bought off the Scottish by giving them Cumbria (as a Cumbrian this appalls me mightily!) paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then provoked four civil wars. These decisions left the country in ruins, economically and otherwise. It had never been a weaker power before or since then.

At one point I would have named Richard III as one of the worst, however it seems obvious to me that much of his poor reputation was due to Tudor propaganda. I don't believe he murdered the princes. I certainly think there was some sort of 'hush hush' secret funeral or something of the boys, in order to prevent the exact rumours that have dogged his reputation for centuries. Also, there is no proof that he was responsible for the death of Henry VI, or that he was even in the castle(?) at the time of Henry's demise.

__________________
"I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."
— Queen Elizabeth I

I put George and William because they weren't bad guys, but were poor kings and as the result of that the power of the Sovereign was diminished considerably more leaving close to the same modern limits on the monarchy.

I find it strange that someone would regard allowing democracy to grow as a bad thing.

I find it strange that someone would regard allowing democracy to grow as a bad thing.

I don't disagree with allowing democracy to grow, obviously. The Great Reform Bill of 1832 provided a lot of needed change. However, the fact is if George IV and Willian IV had been stronger Kings, like George III (Minus the Regency, obviously) there wouldn't have been as strong of a following for diminishing more of the Crown's power. Politican's are often guilty of only looking out for the immediate needs of their party, politicans allowed to run wild can really divide a country. Sovereigns with no constitutional restraints have the opportunity to become tyrants at times. I just like to see a balance between the two, and I like to see them work together not against one and other.

'I support the Monarchy, not a playground for politicians'

__________________

__________________
It may be that our future will lay upon us more than one stern test. Our past will have taught us how to meet it unshaken - His Majesty The King George V